Why don’t they have this? Where everyone on both teams gets to decide which hero gets banned before the game starts. I think this would give everyone the option to ban there hero for the game. You can vote 1 tank/3 dps/ and 1 support. This would NOT make tanks and supports click DPS when there mains are gone. This would also give us the community a chance of playing the game better. So yes, I say no to forced weekly hero bans.
3 Likes
This community is far too biased to make proper decision making. I trust the developers in choosing which heroes can’t be played over this community.
3 Likes
" we wont add hero bans because we dont think it is fair that other players decide how you play"
Adds 222, rotational hero bans, and seasonal maps
We wont let other players decide how you play but we sure will 
Of course, what do you think it would happen if they implemented hero bans? People would look into your profile and ban the character that you play (if it’s a weak one) so you can play meta.
This is way better than that and will add more diversity to the game.
1 Like
At first this was my only real problem with the system. It shows Blizz doesn’t trust the community enough to handle this ourselves. But after I thought about it for a while I realized the pool system is better if they do it right.
I suspect it could be so they can use the timeframe the heroes are banned to balance the problem heroes, and then when they come back they can look at them again. Bronzies permabanning Torb and Mercy doesn’t give them any useful information. Also low ranks banning whatever is giving them trouble, since that almost never aligns with what higher ranks have problems with, hinders their growth as players since they just ban whatever gives them issues instead of learning to deal with it.
But again, this all relies on Blizz actually swiftly taking action, which they haven’t done for nearly 4 years. Lets hope they keep their word about the more frequent balancing.
If everyone’s gets their chosen bans in this way, you end up banning up to 60 heroes per match, and there are only 30 to choose from.
If you’re voting for that many in total, then most players probably aren’t getting what they vote for anyway, given how split the votes will inevitably be. In that case, the degree of difference between player choice and a random choice (or developer choice in this case) is definitely not worth wasting an extra few minutes at the start of each match.
Developer-selected bans are probably not great for the game, but I’m pretty confident they’ll be better than player-selected bans.
Huh? Easy. Lock your profile. And even then make it so you can review stats as match launches
People will keep baning again so they incentive the same meta.
Do you want that? ok
1 Like
After their track record…u probably shouldn’t trust either.
1 Like
Because they want to avoid a “ban meta”
Where the meta stagnates again, but with 1-2 banned heroes being the “meta” bans that will always be unplayable
2 Likes
This is what I think and I’m copy pasting my comment from another topic with the same question: If they implement hero bans only certain heros will get banned (Doom, Mei, etc) and it’s gonna stagnate again. With hero pools everything will change weekly and every week is going to feel different. There’s also the problem of who gets to ban a hero on the team. Will it be random? Will it be the person with the most SR? That’s gonna create a lot of toxicity on its own. Imagine how toxic people are going to act when the hero they wanted to ban doesn’t get banned. The entire point of hero pools is to prevent the game from stagnating and to create meta changes and people want hero bans for that reason (well it’s at least one of the reasons). It’s almost having hero bans but without a lot of those issues.
3 Likes
another reason, that jeff mentioned last week i believe, was that they try to not make games longer and a ban phase before each match would certainly do exactly that, make the matches longer.
1 Like